Now that organisations like the UK Met Office and it seems others are
advocating a back to square one and start with raw data all over again
perhaps everything should be put on hold for a period.

Some are even suggesting that no one knows whether the temperatures are
rising, falling or remaining steady.
It is a mess to make Peter Garret's pink bats look well organised !

The problem spindoc is that you can distort, misrepresent and dribble out "facts" at a rapid rate - 19 at last count? To answer each of the assertions with any due respect would obviously take a lot longer to answer than it has taken you to state, unless I simply say they’re wrong.

If I did the latter, an uninformed OLO audience sees it as my anonymous word against someone else. If I do the former, I give up any semblance of having a normal life. This would be despite the fact that your 19 are soundly explained and countered elsewhere – and you would know this. So I do not see any relevance what so all to rebut you since in my humble opinion, all you are showing here is a rambunctious and melodramatic rant, ‘look at me, look at me”.

Fortunately science is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of weighing up the evidence and as such, AGW is extremely robust, notwithstanding it is not absolute (a point that many people want to demand). And still, science and technology are getting better all the time. In terms of reporting, of course things can be improved, and they will be (no one would expect anything less) – but to infer that there is a world-wide conspiracy to topple the US, or install a world government, or that each and every scientist and scientific academy or institution is involved in a monumental cover up, is simply delusional and becoming more shill.

Using ‘debating’ tricks as well as you do is all very nice in a debating club, or on OLO. However, the science remains what it is at the end of the "debate". There really is no need to oppose the science with spindoctored vaudeville acts. If mainstream science was as weak as you infer, you would be able to propose a robust alternative explanation to the enhanced greenhouse effect – you can’t. Not even real contrarian scientists can – but that is not to say they shouldn’t keep trying. Bye bye.

Thanks to Phil M